Let’s hope the OP never gets a glimpse of a Fast & Furious movie…
Assault on Arkham was even less plausible for a lot of those reasons.
Joker is still in his outfit and paint.
Bane is in his cell with his machinery still hooked up to him and filled with serum, because the moment his cell opens, it powers him up again.
Poison Ivy is kept in a greenhouse. :dubious:
All of their weaponry is kept in the property room on site.
Guards standing around with guns with villains walking straight at them, obviously having killed other guards, and no one shoots.
I think it’s a reasonable plot. Superheroes have great powers but use them responsibly. It’s natural that other less noble people are going to look at those powers and want to take them and use them for their own personal benefit. To me this seems more realistic than the idea of villains like the Joker or Lex Luthor who apparently are just motivated to fight the hero out of an abstract sense of evil.
It also creates the possibility of an interesting narrative. A reflective superhero has to consider that while he can use his powers for good, those powers have the potential to be used for evil. So can he justify keeping the powers around? Or would he be better off seeking to eliminate the power? Marvel movies have touched on this issue.
Which is one of the reasons CA:CW is an outstanding movie - there are alot of things in it beyond just typical superhero movie fare.
He was in an orange jumpsuit before he escaped, and presumably (i.e. for the vast majority of versions of the character) that’s permanent coloration, not “paint”.
A Venom drip and a greenhouse might be medical necessities in each case. The real :dubious: part is the existence of a one-stop “release the prisoners and let loose the dogs of war” switch for Mistah J to throw.
Ok, weird. Reply with quote isn’t.
I guess that still begs the question of how he got back into his outfit with the acid flower so quickly. Was it in a locker outside his cell?
Fully functional copies of all that stuff is for sale in the Arkham gift shop. Government cutbacks, you know.
For any form of fiction, from one-liner joke to epic scripture, whether comedy, romance, espionage, horror, opera, porn, martial arts, WHAT EVER
The work being presented to you is the Emperor.
You can marvel at the beauty and craftsmanship of the new clothes.
Or you can see the ridiculous spectacle through the eyes of a naive child who hasn’t learned the social graces and protocols of adult society.
If you participate with the other grown-ups, you may be thoroughly entertained by suspending your disbelief.
If you call attention to the leader-type’s nakedness, you will end the game for everyone.
But why pay the price of admission (plus food & drinks) if you’re unwilling to be entertained?
Or, as some have noted, you can just opt out of attending.
What a documentary, instead – An Inconvenient Truth, perhaps? Bowling For Columbine, instead?
Or read a textbook, user manual, repair guide, or material safety data sheet.
Or go play an instrument or browse The Dope.
Me, I tend to think spectator sports are more ridiculous than fictional literature. Entire industries are built upon millions of dollars in profits and losses and advertising and alcohol and sex and sales and merchandising, with fans cheering and crying and wagering real money as if any of the results are going to make a bit of difference to anybody involved (much less to the planet) when the next season starts. After this season is over, the rankings all get reset and the brackets are wiped clean. Why do these people spend their time, money, energy, blood, sweat, tears, and steroids in pursuit of a goal that lasts less than a year?
–G!
Don’t hang on
Nothing lasts forever
but the earth and sky
…–Kerry Livgren (Kansas)
…Dust In the Wind
…Point of Know Return
Well, consider that Superman vs. Batman deal.
On one side you have a semi-psychotic billionaire. He is very fit and strong by human standards. He has access to a warehouse of neat gadgets.
On the other side you have an alien that is bulletproof, can see everything, can hear a mouse fart in the next city over, has deathstar-class lasers built into his eyes, and is quite capable of flying around the earth so fast he rewinds time. Handy, just in case he misjudged something.
How exactly is Batman supposed to have any chance whatsoever? It’s like pitting a 4-your-old in combat against a Brigade of Marines.
No, Superhero comics/books/movies do not, and should not make sense.
Their only merit is the awe of seeing someone doing stuff that is impossible,
so there is no sense in complaining when what they do is not only impossible, but also mindbogglingly stupid.
Well now, there’s our Deep Thought for the day. I think you are agreeing with me 
The same way Man had a chance against the physically superior Lions and Dinosaurs, through intelligence.
Which is why I thought any BvS movie would be a detective movie at heart and was looking forward to seeing Afleck play that sort of role.
It wouldn’t even be difficult, Superman can fly and punch bad guys but how does he know which bad guys to punch? So just have Lex Luger leading Superman around by the nose, creating situations where Superman just makes things worse by falling for diversions or intercepting the wrong planes. Everything seems to be going to Luger’s dastardly plan except in the shadows Batman has been watching and investigating and has figured out the truth.
Thats what I thought I was going to see, more fool me I guess.
Superman is also supposed to have superintelligence (something the movies have never shown, IMO). He should be thinking circles around both Batman and Luthor, it should take a superhuman intellect like Braniac or Thinker to outwit him.
It might not make for a fair matchup, of course - but fair is overrated. As is UberBatman.
Granted, lions don’t fly, don’t have eye-lasers and can’t literally punch you into the sun.
but would if they could.
I don’t like the CGI monster fests at the end of team-up movies. But I can see how the enemy must be extremely powerful, not some run of the mill smart dude. There are just too many protagonist, with too many divergent powers. As individuals, I can see how an “outsmarting” human opponent might be realistic, but, nah, not really in a team-up.
WARNING: Spoilers below!
The standalone Iron Man movies were great (for the most part) precisely because he never had to go against a CGI monster. They were all humans for the most part, either equaling him with some sort of semi-realistic tech.
Same with Captain America, basically a super strong dude with an indestructible shield. He’s not all powerful.
The main reason standalone Batman Movies have usually always done so well, is because he’s a a human, doesn’t need super CGI monster opponents.
Spiderman isn’t invincible and thus can fight some reasonable opponents.
When you start getting into the overpowered protagonists, a human opponent really doesn’t stand up. The only time a human is ever going to get the best of Superman is if they manage to get a hold of some kryptonite, or possess krypton-level powers as well. He has far too many strengths, and far too few weaknesses. This is a flaw in the character imo. So once those are used up, off to the big CGI monsters.
I loved the Wonder Woman movie, loved how it respected the canon, but was really disappointed by her having to fight a god at the end (which is basically what happened in Justice league back-to-back, the villain even looked similar). Wonder Woman, in this incarnation, just plain doesn’t have ANY weakness that I can see.
I could go on, but honestly the problem with superhero movies is once you make to many of them you’re kind of painted into a corner.
I’ve said many times that it’s impossible to write good stories about Superman, and that what you need to do is to instead write good stories about Clark Kent.
Well, the only way to fight Superman is by making it impossible for him to deal with all of the potential problems all at once. The original Christopher Reeves movie played on this and then resorted to the old Superman Deus Ex Machina ability to pull new powers out of his ass to win.
Otherwise you need an Ultron/Braniac who can be in a large number of places at once.
I don’t know if you could get away with doing that right now because it would be too similar to Age of Ultron.
Yes, wholeheartedly (as usual) but in my trademarked exceedingly-verbose manner.
–G!
Is it not strange? The religious right prefers to see combat and its gory aftermath both in fiction and reality (news). Yet they say depictions of people expressing their love for each other are obscene. :dubious:
My biggest problem with all superhero movies is having 99% of the characters use blunt force trauma as their main weapon and then also making 99% of the characters impervious to blunt force trauma.
Marvel Studios has actually done a pretty good job of coping with this in the MCU by making each of the films more than just a ‘superhero’ film, and letting the director and writers play with the tropes of other genres (Ant-Man as a heist movie, Guardians of the Galaxy as classic space opera, Winter Soldier as political thriller, Ragnorak as ‘Eighties-style high fantasy, et cetera), and with the group films making the conflict more about the group dynamics than the oft-disposable villian. With apologies to Tom Hiddleston, who is a fantastic actor and made Loki the most memorable foil in the MCU, the real tension in The Avengers and conflict to be resolved was the interplay among the team, which made the death of Phil Coulson so profound (at least, until Marvel Television revived him as the basis for a show about a bunch of functionaries who really ought to be calling the Avengers).
So, even though the MCU films definitely follow a certain formula in how they play out, and most of them have CGI-heavy fests with less-than-memorable antagonists, they details of how the story is developed and the interplay among the protagonists makes them feel unique. I suppose Superman v. Batman tried to produce the same kind of conflict but it is basically a high concept idea that isn’t really workable in practice, and the seriousness with which the DCEU movies have taken themselves limits the amount of trope subversion that makes most of the MCU films feel fresh. I haven’t seen Justice League but from the trailers the efforts to interject humor seemed to be pretty forced, and the only actors in the film really well-suited to playing on humor are Gal Godot and Ezra Miller.
And for the o.p., yes, superhero films are ‘stupid’, if by stupid you mean physically unrealistic and contrived to pit the characters against gods and superpowerful aliens, because that is what superhero films are by definition. You kind of have to set aside the critical part of your movie watching brain an accept the fact that within the world of the films a man in a thin metal suit can withstand a direct impact from a tank cannon, or a massive Nazi death cult with a penchant for stenciling their logo on every flat surface remained undetected for seventy years within a semi-secret government paramilitary agency, or that an inventor found a particle that allows the atoms to “become closer together” producing variable mass and inertial effects as required by the story. The genius of the MCU, such as it is, is that it doesn’t really make any effort to explain away any of this; it just asks the viewer to come along with the ride and pokes enough fun at itself that it is clear it isn’t expecting anyone to take it too literally. “I think the first thing we should do is call the Avengers”, says Scott Lang, and the explanation we get is both facile and internally consistent with the experience of the embittered Hank Pym who’d rather trust the fate of the world on an ex-convict cat burgler than take any chance that a Stark would steal his shrinking technology.
Stranger